Near SE, SW Aim for Consensus, Not Division, Over Development Benefits
Ward 6’s Near Southeast and Southwest neighborhoods are facing the greatest concentration of oncoming development in the District, including three major waterfront projects, the new baseball stadium and the redevelopment of the Waterside Mall. But the community hasn’t exactly presented a united front in the recent past – neighborhood leaders and community organizations have clashed over which projects to support and what community organizations should represent the community.

During the baseball stadium debate, for example, Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6D opposed the deal; the Southwest Neighborhood Assembly narrowly supported it. Recently, the ANC initially opposed a proposal for the Waterside Mall development, arguing that plans did not guarantee a grocery store on the site, while SWNA supported the application.

“The rap on our community is that we can’t get along,” acknowledges the Rev. Ruth Hamilton, pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church, located at 400 I St., SW. But she hopes that through the work of the Community Benefits Coordinating Council, which she helped found two years ago, residents will be united and well-prepared to greet developers.

“We are behind the eight ball,” adds Thelma Jones, an SWNA board member and another CBCC organizer. “And we have had our challenges. But we want to make sure that when this development comes ... we know how the process works, we know how to leverage our power as a community, and we have a consensus on what we want to get out of development.”

This past month the CBCC held two community meetings, on May 19 and 21, with the goal of drafting a consensus vision on what community benefits residents most want to demand from developers. The meetings were sponsored by the ANC, SWNA and the Southwest/West of the River Family Strengthening Collaborative.

Community benefit agreements are generally negotiated with developers in exchange for the community support in obtaining some public benefit, such as additional height or density zoning allowances, alley closings, public space permits or even public financing.

In recent years, benefit agreements have become more popular across the country as a way to mitigate the impact of development. “They allow the community to be a signatory in a process that they are otherwise excluded from,” explains John Haiman, assistant director of One DC, a community development corporation that negotiated one of the first community benefit agreements in the District with the Radio One development in the Shaw neighborhood.

“But if you look at the scope of development in the District ... there are very few communities where residents are organized to take advantage of the development process, and even fewer communities that are organized in time to take proactive steps,” he adds.

During the CBCC meetings, resident expressed a strong desire for housing and employment set-asides specific to the Near Southeast and Southwest neighborhoods. They also suggested pooling cash contributions from developers towards a “human development” center that would provide comprehensive employment and education services in the neighborhood and having developers create a free “wireless footprint” or provide public-access computers.

“Too many developers see our neighborhood as a gold mine and see current residents as wastewater as they pan for upscale retail for wealthy suburbanites ... We want to see benefits ... [for] this specific community,” says ANC 6D02 Commissioner David Sobelsohn, another longtime CBCC member.

In many cases, the District already has a formalized venue for community benefits through the Planned Unit Development process, which specifically makes available additional height and density bonuses to developers in exchange for a community benefits package.

“But it really isn’t the case that a neighborhood can establish an amenities package. The developer can proffer [the community benefits package], the Zoning Commission can approve or deny,” emphasizes Joel Lawson, deputy director of the District’s Office of Planning. “[But] In actual fact, a wise developer will be dealing with the neighborhood.” Lawson adds that the OP has initiated a review of the PUD process. “Community groups, developers, architects, everyone has said we should take a look at the process.”

CBCC members want to see their neighbors look beyond individual PUDs, however.

“We want people to take it up a step, to think ‘We are looking at 10 years of development, and there is no job training facility in Southwest right now,’” explains Mary Jacksteit, project director of Collaboration DC, a community mediation organization. “Instead of having developers come in and do these little bitty things, why not start pooling the money and do something substantial, something that will actually make an impact in the community ... This is big bucks coming down here!”

The CBCC already has won over one important stakeholder: Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells. Wells attended both sessions and promised to “make these my priorities when I deal with developers.”

He added that he would also use the CBCC results as a guide when it came to dividing up the baseball community benefits fund. Created to help gain votes for the contentious baseball legislation, the fund was intended to pay for “community area priorities” with a $450 million bond issue tied to stadium-area taxes and stadium fees. It also specifically set aside $5 million for spending in Ward 6.

Due to cost overruns at the stadium, however, the council later specified that the tax receipt increments initially intended to pay back the bond would first go to pay for additional construction funds.

Neighborhood residents have been highly critical of the fund. “It was more like a city benefits fund,” says Sobelsohn, adding that there is little evidence that stadium development has benefited the surrounding community so far. “We can’t even find out if they have employed any of our residents.”

Because baseball stadium construction is ongoing, it isn’t clear exactly how much funding will be left for the community benefits. Sean Madigan, spokesperson for Deputy Mayor of Planning and Economic Development Neil Albert, confirms that the deputy mayor’s office will play a “coordinating role” in deciding how the funds would be spent, but could not immediately say what the process or timeline would be. According to the legislation, the mayor will have to submit a spending plan for council approval.

The CBCC expected to release the results of its meetings by mid June, with the hope that SWNA and ANC would both approve the documents. “We do want each of the sponsoring organizations to adopt the plan so that we can move forward as a unified community,” explains Jones.

To some, however, the CBCC process has already been a success. “This couldn’t have happened a year ago,” says Hamilton, looking out at the tables of residents, including both longtime residents and newcomers, ANC commissioners and SWNA board members. “The relationships that we have built, they pay for this process already. We just have to continue doing this as new residents come in.”

For more information about CBCC, contact the Rev. Ruth Hamilton at 202-484-7700 or rwh@westminsterdc.org, or ANC 6D02 Commisioner David Sobelsohn at 202-484-8303 or anc6D02@capaccess.org. 

Wells Blocks “Regressive” Tax Cuts in First Budget
Ward 6’s freshmen councilmember played a large behind-the-scenes role before the May 15 first reading of the council’s fiscal year 2008 budget legislation. Leading up to the meeting, Council Chair Vincent Gray fashioned a $5.7 billion budget package intended to gain a strong majority passage. As part of the “something for everyone,” the original budget included a $3.5 million estate tax cut and a further strengthening of the property tax cap.

In the days before the vote, the tax-cut package had been strongly criticized because it primarily benefited the affluent and homeowners. The estate tax cut proposal, which has been pushed annually and so far unsuccessfully by lone Republican and At-large Councilmember Carol Schwartz, especially rankled Wells.

According to council staffers, Wells quietly gathered votes against the tax cut leading up to the May 15 legislative meeting. He then e-mailed the chair on the afternoon before the session, informing him that he had seven of eleven votes to successfully block the proposal. Blindsided, Gray pulled late hours to rewrite the budget, substituting an increase in the District's income tax personal exemption and tax benefits for small businesses. 

“I wasn’t going to vote for Bush’s estate tax cut while the District had unmet needs,” explains Wells.

After the last-minute rewrite, the next day’s budget session was lively, with plenty of last-minute fund-shifting, often starring Ward 8 Councilmember Marion Barry. Ward 6-related highlights include:

• Barry Takes Aim at Eastern Market Renovation Funds. Calling existing funding for employment services in the District a disgrace, Barry took aim at $40 million of surplus revenues that Mayor Adrian Fenty proposed to allocate for the renovation of Eastern Market and Georgetown Library. Barry tried several motions to repurpose the funds but was blocked on procedural grounds because the bulk of the funding comes from the fiscal year 2007 revenue surplus. The former Ward 6 resident did seem more eager to strip Georgetown Library funding than Eastern Market funding, but in either case, he will have another opportunity when the mayor sends down legislation distributing the surplus revenue next month.  

• Rent Supplements Win Over Personal Exemption Increase. In another move, Barry succeeded in rallying a $5 million increase for local rent supplements. Similar to the federal Housing Choice Voucher Program (the former Section 8), the program was restarted with local funds last year to address rising rents and a long waiting list for federal vouchers. More than a dozen housing advocates supporting increased funding were in the council chambers, and Barry moved to eliminate a $350 increase in the personal exemption on DC’s income tax. The tax cut, which was touted as equally benefiting all residents, would have cost the city $10.3 million. Barry settled for a compromise suggested by At-Large Councilmember Kwame Brown – a $175 million increase in the personal exemption, and $5 million to increase housing vouchers that Barry said would pay for an additional 500 households. Despite opposition from Council Chair Gray, the bill passed 6-5, with Wells casting the tie-breaking vote.
• Historical Society Funds Cut. Barry’s most surprising move was an amendment that cut $500,000 of funding earmarked for the Historical Society of Washington. “What have they done to deserve that?” asked the former mayor. Coming late in the grueling session, the amendment passed unanimously except for the opposition of Wells.

“I think everyone was so shell shocked. Even if they can do a better job, you don’t eliminate funding from a city’s historical society,” explains Wells.

Speaking at a Ward 8 event the following weekend, Barry made it clear that even if councilmembers were planning to reconsider for the second reading, he would not back down. “We are going to keep that funding out. Or at least, make sure they tell DC’s real history,” said Barry.

• Wells Backs Away From Ward 5 Streets Funding. Upset by a bill that would create a one-time transfer of alcoholic beverage licenses for adult-oriented clubs formerly located on the current baseball stadium site, Ward 5 Councilmember Harry Thomas asked for a $3.7 million set-aside from the Department of Public Works budget for street improvements in the Ivy City neighborhood that is the proposed new home of the clubs. Thomas won over a majority of his colleagues on first reading, but he did not receive the backing of Wells, who abstained. The Ward 6 councilmember worried that the set-aside might cut into funds slated for Ward 6 projects. “I just don’t know what the impact would be on Ward 6,” he said.

The second and final reading of the budget, which is traditionally less exciting than the first reading, is scheduled to take place on June 5.